Talk-Polywell.org

Hey, what about this?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/04/ ... ell-tower/

I wonder why they thought they could do it?

This is still a Polywell thread, so, what if this had been working Polywell type fusion reactor? And the town didn't want that either?

Well the problem was that they erected a commercial building on somebodies private property without permission and without paying rent, etc.
I cant just go and put my desk into Next G Communications offices and then do my own business there, right?
So why should they be allowed to do that?
I think that they should not only take down the thing, but also pay a hefty compensation for this violation of private property to the owner.
Its like breaking and entering, just on a corporate level.

Skipjack wrote:Well the problem was that they erected a commercial building on somebodies private property without permission and without paying rent, etc.
I cant just go and put my desk into Next G Communications offices and then do my own business there, right?
So why should they be allowed to do that?
I think that they should not only take down the thing, but also pay a hefty compensation for this violation of private property to the owner.
Its like breaking and entering, just on a corporate level.

I agree with you. But I wonder what their reasoning was. Even jerks can rationalize. Did they think (or at least tell themselves) they were following some overarching law? Were they stoned out of their skulls on smack?

If I were the property owners, I would send them a bill for $1 million dollars per day. the included letter would tell them they should have asked me first, as I typically charge 1 million dollars per day for such things. Oh gosh, if they had only asked me first.

If I were the property owners, I would send them a bill for $1 million dollars per day.

Yepp, thats what I would have done also.
One Million Dollars!

While we are on the topic of private property, I found out several months ago that My State has a law allowing the City or the County to destroy someones house without their permission, without notifying them, and without going through a court proceeding. (AND forcing them to pay the demolition costs!)


I personally consider this to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment's "Due Process" clause, and I marvel at how such a thing could have been passed by a legislature. I happen to know that in 1978, the Legislature was completely controlled by Democrats, so I chalk it up to ignorance and arrogance.

Anyway, the 5th Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

I know someone that this has happened to, and I expect this is going to be my next crusade for civil rights.

found out several months ago that My State has a law allowing the City or the County to destroy someones house without their permission, without notifying them, and without going through a court proceeding

That is weird. When would such an instance occur/the law apply?

Skipjack wrote:

found out several months ago that My State has a law allowing the City or the County to destroy someones house without their permission, without notifying them, and without going through a court proceeding

That is weird. When would such an instance occur/the law apply?

It happens a lot. Mostly to the poor. I know of several people to which this has happened. All the City has to do is declare a house dilapidated, and they can tear it down. I know of one instance in which they were going to tear down this beautiful old two story home, but the brother of the man who owned it showed up at a City council meeting (The owner was in the gulf serving the country) and begged the council not to do it, at least not until his brother could come back and was able to defend his property.

The Council relented, and put it off for a later date. Had the brother not seen the notice on the door, and had he not showed up at the Council meeting, that house would now be a vacant lot, with the cost of demolition added to the property taxes.

I cannot fathom how the law which allows this can survive a Federal court challenge. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a lawyer regarding this. (I mean one that knows what he's talking about.)

I cannot fathom how the law which allows this can survive a Federal court challenge. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a lawyer regarding this. (I mean one that knows what he's talking about.)

Yeah, this does seem quite strange to me as well.

Were they stoned out of their skulls on smack?

Cocaine more likely. Or Jolt.